Neodron Ltd v. Amazon.com Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Neodron Ltd. (Ireland)
  • Defendant: Amazon.com, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ August & Kabat
• Case Identification: 6:19-cv-00395, W.D. Tex., 08/28/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant’s transaction of business, commission of infringing acts, and maintenance of a regular and established place of business in the district, including corporate offices and a fulfillment center in Austin, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s touchscreen devices, including the Amazon Fire tablet and Kindle e-reader product lines, infringe four patents related to capacitive touchscreen sensor design and noise suppression technology.
• Technical Context: The patents relate to the design and operation of capacitive touch sensors, a foundational technology for user interfaces in modern consumer electronics such as smartphones and tablets.
• Key Procedural History: The operative pleading is an Amended Complaint. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2005-07-08	Priority Date for ’502 Patent
2006-10-20	Priority Date for ’547 Patent
2008-04-10	Priority Date for ’784 Patent
2010-04-15	Priority Date for ’072 Patent
2010-10-26	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,821,502
2013-08-06	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,502,547
2016-11-08	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,489,072
2017-11-21	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,823,784
2019-08-28	Amended Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,823,784 - “Capacitive Touch Screen with Noise Suppression,” issued November 21, 2017

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the issue of electrical noise, often generated by underlying display modules like LCDs, which can interfere with the sensitive measurements of a capacitive touch sensor and degrade its performance (’784 Patent, col. 1:5-10, col. 3:7-14).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a two-layer touch sensor structure where the bottom layer of "drive" electrodes is designed to "substantially entirely cover" the surface with only minuscule gaps between them. This "flooded" electrode layer acts as a built-in shield, blocking noise from an underlying display from reaching the "sense" electrodes on the layer above, thereby improving signal quality without requiring a separate, dedicated shielding layer (’784 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:24-44).
• Technical Importance: This design aims to enable thinner, more cost-effective, and optically superior touchscreens by integrating noise suppression directly into the electrode pattern itself (’784 Patent, col. 4:30-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-3 (Compl. ¶13).
• Independent claim 1 requires, among other elements:
  • A touch sensitive panel with a plurality of drive electrodes in a first layer and a plurality of sense electrodes in a second layer, separated by a substrate.
  • The drive electrodes "substantially entirely cover the first layer" and are separated by "small gaps."
  • The sense electrodes are "substantially isolated from capacitive effects below the first layer."

U.S. Patent No. 9,489,072 - “Noise Reduction in Capacitive Touch Sensors,” issued November 8, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the problem of noise generated by display scanning circuitry, which can couple into the touch sensor's receive electrodes and make touch detection unreliable, particularly in devices with high-voltage display drivers like electrophoretic screens (’072 Patent, col. 1:10-14, 1:20-24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where the touch sensor controller and display controller coordinate their operations. The touch sensor is configured to perform its measurement "acquisition cycle" during periods when the display circuitry is in a state of "reduced noise," such as when display scanning is temporarily paused or operating at lower switching voltages. This synchronization is managed through signaling between the two controllers (’072 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:40-45; Fig. 5A).
• Technical Importance: This approach provides a method for noise reduction at a system level, potentially eliminating the need for additional physical shielding components and thus allowing for thinner and less complex device designs (’072 Patent, col. 1:15-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-37 (Compl. ¶21).
• Independent claim 1 requires, among other elements:
  • A display controller circuit to control a display's scanning duty cycle.
  • A touch sensor controller circuit to control the sensor's acquisition duty cycle.
  • A configuration where "a portion of the sensor acquisition duty cycle occurs within a period of reduced noise from the duty cycle of the scanning of the display."
  • A process where the touch controller monitors for an absence of noise, initiates acquisition, and then communicates completion to the display controller.

U.S. Patent No. 8,502,547

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,502,547, “Capacitive Sensor,” issued August 6, 2013 (Compl. ¶28).
• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a capacitive sensor with multiple operational modes for adjusting a parameter. A user's initial touch allows for a "coarse" selection from a full range of values. The sensor can then switch to a "fine" adjustment or "zoom" mode, triggered by a specific user action (e.g., a sustained touch or a gesture), where the same physical sensor area is mapped to a much smaller range of values for precise control (’547 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:2-10).
• Asserted Claims: Claims 1-17 (Compl. ¶29).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Amazon Fire HD 10 and Amazon Fire HD 8 of infringement, presumably relating to user interface elements for adjusting settings like volume or brightness (Compl. ¶29).

U.S. Patent No. 7,821,502

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,821,502, “Two-Dimensional Position Sensor,” issued October 26, 2010 (Compl. ¶36).
• Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a design for a capacitive touch sensor that places all electrodes on a single side of a substrate, which can reduce manufacturing complexity. This is achieved by connecting broken segments of row electrodes using "wrap-around" connections made outside the active sensing area, thereby avoiding the need for crossovers within the sensor grid that would typically require a second layer (’502 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-63).
• Asserted Claims: Claims 1-24 (Compl. ¶37).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Amazon Fire HD 10 and Amazon Fire HD 8 of infringement, relating to the physical construction of their touch sensors (Compl. ¶37).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the "Accused Products" as certain devices such as the Amazon Fire HD 10, Amazon Fire HD 8, and Amazon Kindle Paperwhite (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 21, 29, 37).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are consumer electronic tablets and e-readers that utilize capacitive touchscreens as the primary means for user interaction (Compl. ¶13, 21). The complaint alleges that these devices incorporate specific touchscreen hardware architectures and operational methods for noise reduction that infringe the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 23, 31, 39). The complaint characterizes touchscreen technology generally as ubiquitous and important but does not provide specific allegations regarding the market position of the accused products (Compl. ¶2).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint states that claim charts are attached as exhibits comparing the asserted independent claims to the accused products (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 23, 31, 39). As these exhibits were not provided, a summary of the narrative infringement allegations is presented below.

’784 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Summary: The complaint alleges that the Amazon Fire HD 10 and HD 8 tablets infringe by incorporating a touch-sensitive panel that practices the claimed invention (Compl. ¶13). The infringement theory posits that these devices use a two-layer electrode structure where the drive electrode layer is designed to "substantially entirely cover" its layer, thereby providing a shielding function that isolates the sense electrode layer from underlying electronic noise, as recited in claim 1 (Compl. ¶15; ’784 Patent, Abstract).
• Identified Points of Contention: A central question will likely be one of claim scope and factual correspondence: do the drive electrodes in the accused Fire tablets, as physically constructed, "substantially entirely cover" their layer within the meaning of the patent? This raises a definitional question for claim construction and an evidentiary question requiring technical analysis of the accused devices.

’072 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Summary: The complaint alleges that the Amazon Kindle Paperwhite infringes by implementing the claimed noise reduction method (Compl. ¶21). The theory is that the device's touch sensor controller and display controller are configured to work in concert, with the touch sensor performing its acquisition cycle during periods of reduced electrical noise from the display's scanning cycle, thereby satisfying the elements of claim 1 (Compl. ¶23; ’072 Patent, Abstract).
• Identified Points of Contention: The primary question appears to be evidentiary: what is the actual operational timing and signaling protocol between the touch and display controllers in the Kindle Paperwhite? The dispute may focus on whether the touch sensing operation is in fact synchronized to occur within what can be defined as "a period of reduced noise" from the display, or if any observed correlation is incidental rather than a configured feature.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’784 Patent, Claim 1: "substantially entirely cover"

• Context and Importance: This term is critical to the infringement analysis for the ’784 Patent, as it defines the required physical layout of the drive electrodes. The case may turn on whether the accused devices' electrode patterns meet this geometric threshold.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's emphasis on the function of noise isolation could support a broader reading, where "substantially entirely" means covering the layer sufficiently to achieve the desired shielding effect, rather than demanding a specific percentage of surface area (’784 Patent, col. 4:38-44).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly links the "flooding" design to making the pattern "invisible or almost invisible," specifying that gaps between electrodes are preferably "less than around 100 micrometers." This could support a narrower construction requiring a very high degree of physical coverage where gaps are functionally and visually insignificant (’784 Patent, col. 4:58-62).

’072 Patent, Claim 1: "a period of reduced noise"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement claim against the Kindle Paperwhite. Its construction will determine the factual showing required to prove that touch acquisition is synchronized with low-noise intervals of the display cycle.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes interleaving touch acquisition with "non-scanning periods" and notes the goal is to "substantially attenuate the effect of noise" (’072 Patent, col. 5:1-10). This may support an interpretation where any statistically significant drop from the peak noise level of the display cycle qualifies as a "period of reduced noise."
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides specific examples of what creates such a period, such as when the display controller "temporarily halts scanning" or operates at "reduced switching voltages" (’072 Patent, col. 4:55-57, col. 5:29-32). This could suggest the term requires an actively configured quiet interval, not merely a coincidental lull in a noisy signal.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

For all four asserted patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The stated basis is that Defendant encourages and instructs its customers and end users, through user manuals and online materials, to use the accused products in their normal, customary manner, which allegedly constitutes direct infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 22, 30, 38).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant has knowledge of the asserted patents and the infringing nature of the accused products "through the filing and service of this Complaint." It further alleges that despite this knowledge, Defendant continues its infringing activities. These allegations form a basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 22, 30, 38). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: does the physical architecture of the electrode layers in Amazon’s Fire tablets meet the specific geometric limitation of a "substantially entirely cover[ed]" drive layer, as required by the ’784 patent? This determination will likely depend on expert testimony regarding device teardowns and the court's construction of the key claim term.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of operational synchronization: does the Amazon Kindle Paperwhite's software and hardware actually configure the touch sensor to perform its measurements during a "period of reduced noise" from the display cycle, as claimed by the ’072 patent? Answering this will require detailed analysis of the device's internal timing, control logic, and signaling protocols.
• A broader question concerns the cumulative infringement theory: given that the four asserted patents cover distinct aspects of touchscreen technology—physical shielding, system-level timing, sensor layout, and user interface—the case will test whether the various features across Amazon's product lines can be mapped to the specific and different claim boundaries of each patent.